Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying

This is a discussion on Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; There's more to be lost than won with this demonstration, IMO. We've made significant strides in exercising our rights and it should taken seriously and ...

There's more to be lost than won with this demonstration, IMO. We've made significant strides in exercising our rights and it should taken seriously and executed responsibly. His actions are sophomoric at best with little regard for "us", the larger community of gun owners. Legal action on his part? Horse puckey. He needs a trip behind the wood shed. When the Supreme Court once again reviews the Second Amendment, and eventually they will, will they be effected by images of ding bats with orange AK's going walk about amongst mothers with new babes? The power of public opinion is not a thing to underestimate.

I'm a huge supporter and believer in our 2nd Amendment right. It saddens me when someone from the ranks of the gun owner community does something like this.

As gun owners we don't have an agenda to make it legal to own and carry a firearm. The founders of this country put that in place with the 2nd Amendment.

This guy does have a right to carry a legal firearm. And I defend that right. But I don't take an AR15 to go squirrel hunting. Nor do I take a Daisy BB gun to hunt Elk. Common sense wasn't used in this instance. The cause to protect my 2nd Amendment right was dealt a blow by his act of social disregard.

I hate it when I have to support someone like this! But I cannot and will not let the gun grabbers start drawing lines through my 2nd Amendent rights! But if I ever got the chance to meet this guy one on one behind the woodshed I can promise you there would be lots of chopping and no wood for the stove!

Serve my country, swear an oath to protect it, pay my taxes, fly old glory in the front yard, love and protect my family, honor the vets before me and help fellow americans in need.By definition my country now calls me a radical

He harmed and threatened nobody. Once upon a time that was a basic pillar of justice and its execution via the law. It's long since become something else, with respect to firearms specifically and weaponry in general (as well as in many, many other areas).

He and others like him are taking some responsibility for ensuring this swept-under-the-rug thang we've been doing the past 100yrs is discussed, via the courts. Whether this guy ends up with the long-run impacts he's hoping for remains to be seen.

Personally, I'd bet the probabilities of improvements would be far better with, say, NRA-backed strategic attacks against the various restrictions that exist, targeted for maximum effect, with the full legal support of key cases by the NRA. In much the same way as the NAACP supported the strategic attack on the segregation issue via the courts. IMO, the one-off thing that individuals do ends up being far too easily destroyed or swept under the rug simply because it's an individual and not a "pack" effort.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume something, if I am wrong I will be the first to admitt it.... I'm betting if he were black, had on hoodie and baggie pants you would have been the first to call 911???

I think the last thing we want is for the to be so common police DO NOT check. If that happens thugs will have free rein cause we all know you can't profile!!!

Im not saying he isnt stupid, by any means. I did say maybe when refering to him. Im simply saying that if we as a community are going to preach, "shall not be infringed" then we need to be a little less quick to judge or jump the gun.

Do I think its practical to carry a long gun, SBR or pistol variant of a long gun for EDC? Not really, but if we can legally own a type of gun and arnt out INTENTIONALLY scaring people, then why should it matter what gun it is we carry?

We "CAN" do lots of thing but good comon sense tells us its not a good idea. I CAN crap my pants in public but I don't. I CAN wear a 3 piece suit to the pool but I don't.

As a gun owner I want get people on my side not scare them to the other side... I mean is their anything that can turn someone away from religion faster than someone shoving religion down their throat??

I'm a huge supporter and believer in our 2nd Amendment right. It saddens me when someone from the ranks of the gun owner community does something like this.

As gun owners we don't have an agenda to make it legal to own and carry a firearm. The founders of this country put that in place with the 2nd Amendment.

This guy does have a right to carry a legal firearm. And I defend that right. But I don't take an AR15 to go squirrel hunting. Nor do I take a Daisy BB gun to hunt Elk. Common sense wasn't used in this instance. The cause to protect my 2nd Amendment right was dealt a blow by his act of social disregard.

I hate it when I have to support someone like this! But I cannot and will not let the gun grabbers start drawing lines through my 2nd Amendent rights! But if I ever got the chance to meet this guy one on one behind the woodshed I can promise you there would be lots of chopping and no wood for the stove!

"Its only the dead fish that go with the flow".

Nobody has ever changed anything by adhering to societal norms...just keep that in perspective.

Quite clearly this individual set out with the sole purpose of causing a confrontation. He got exactly what he wanted. Now he's hoping for a big payday from it. If the judge finds in his favor, I hope he receives an appropriate compensation. Something like damages in the amount of $1.00. After all, it's not about the money, it's the principal of the thing.

This guy is the next generation of the welfare/lottery mentality. How many of these guys would be doing this sort of thing if the financial windfall was eliminated? Are they really doing it on principal or are they just hoping to win a big settlement? How many of the "winners" of these games donate their payoffs to gun rights organizations? After all if it is "for the cause" isn't that where the money should go?

Are there varying degrees of "legal"? I think not.
Was he endangering anyone? Clearly not.

He was just a guy walking around with a pistol being openly carried... nothing more, nothing less.

Going back and reading some of the responses and original orignial posts, it's become painfully aware to me why we gunowners are in the the quandary that we are in. Most of us have been led into believing that if someone behaves in a way that we dont approve of, then it must be wrong.
Most of us have been brainwashed into accepting silly regulations of a right, a second amendment right,a right that is specifically outlined in the Constitution, as being perfectly acceptable.

We are used to being fed crumbs and accepting it as the norm, from our all knowing,enlightend masters that take care of us and "protect" us, because we are too simple, to uneducated and in many cases, too stupid to understand the big picture.

Some facts...
A Draco pistol, is in fact a short AK. The barrel is 11.5 inches long, well short of the legal minimum for it to be classed as a rifle.
It doesnt have a stock,the barrel is below the minumim 16" required length for a rifle, and by Federal standards it is a legal handgun. As such, it meets the criteria for a handgun in most states.

It may be that the man in question is in fact trolling for some attention. It may be that he is trying to make a point, one that goes all the way to the top, so that certain things may be clarifed by law. What ever his motive is, does it really matter?

If he was walking in the park, where open carry is legal, with a gun that is legal to do so, then why all of the excitement?

Lets look at what should have happened in an ideal world.

Mr. Embody is out for a stroll, and some soccer mom freaks out because this ugly dude is walking around with an even uglier gun. She calls the cops.
Cops get the dreaded "man with a gun" call. Its dreaded because you never know what's going on until you get there and sometimes it gets ugly. When an officer gets that call, they realize that they may be minutes away from having to kill someone.

Cop gets there,searches around and either finds the man with a gun or someone points him out. He approaches that individual in a maximum state of readiness.

He secures the gun and then interviews the owner. Within minutes, it should become apparent that Mr. Embody is acting in a legal manner, that the gun is legal, and that no breach of the law exists. He is given back his gun, and sent on his way.

It should have been a non issue. The reason that is became an issue is because of ignorance displayed at every level.

It was displayed by whoever made the call. They just saw a man with a gun. All he was doing was walking.
The dispatcher got the call and dispatched it to the police, in this case the park ranger. They just put out the info that they get.
The ranger got there and secured the gun.
He either didnt know it was legal,he was confused about it or he didnt care.
He arrested him, and utlimatley let him fight it through the courts.

In a court of law, personal feelings, like the many displayed here, arent supposed to color the facts,only the facts should matter.

Wheter we beleive it to be stupid foolish,dangerous,whether we mistakenly beleive it to be something that it is not, whatever feeling we may have, it should not matter if the issue was legal to begin with.

If the man was simply walking in the park with an openly displayed handgun and it was a legal activity, then there should be repercussions,no fines, no legal hassles,nothing at all.

Now,we get every people of every internet gunboard on the world wide web, talking about this issue for months on end. They talk and speculate and discuss about this thing, this very thing that was common place is most of this country, not so long ago, in a day when most people had enough common sense to know that it wasn't the gun that was the dangerous thing, it was the man that knew how to use it and in that day if someone called law to report that someone was wearing a gun and it was legal act, they would have been the ones that were chastised and ridiculed for being foolish.

It's weird how it all pans out. Here we are, most of us on this board pride ourselves in being pretty well versed when it comes to self defense and the law, ragging on some guy that was doing something legal....but we dont like it because of the gun that he is wearing and using much of the same arguments that the anti's use to limit our rights and freedoms.

It's weird how it all pans out. Here we are, most of us on this board pride ourselves in being pretty well versed when it comes to self defense and the law, ragging on some guy that was doing something legal....but we dont like it because of the gun that he is wearing and using much of the same arguments that the anti's use to limit our rights and freedoms.

Mr. Embody is out for a stroll, and some soccer mom freaks out because this ugly dude is walking around with an even uglier gun. She calls the cops.
Cops get the dreaded "man with a gun" call. Its dreaded because you never know what's going on until you get there and sometimes it gets ugly. When an officer gets that call, they realize that they may be minutes away from having to kill someone.

Cop gets there,searches around and either finds the man with a gun or someone points him out. He approaches that individual in a maximum state of readiness.

He secures the gun and then interviews the owner. Within minutes, it should become apparent that Mr. Embody is acting in a legal manner, that the gun is legal, and that no breach of the law exists. He is given back his gun, and sent on his way.

It should have been a non issue. The reason that is became an issue is because of ignorance displayed at every level.

Agreed, and that's pretty much what did happen, the issue would have ended more quickly expect for the request of the supervisor... Taking him at gun point was probably over the top as there was all ready prior contact....but otherwise they did exactly what you think they should have done....and then Leonoard tried to sue them for it.

A park ranger disarmed and detained Embody to determine whether the AK-47 was a legitimate pistol under Tennessee law,
releasing him only after determining it was. And Embody sued the park ranger, claiming
he had violated his Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Embody’s appearance at the park prompted two encounters with park rangers.
In the first, Ranger Joshua Walsh approached Embody, asked for his permit and
questioned him about the gun. Embody produced a valid permit, but Walsh could not
tell whether the firearm qualified as a legal one under state law. “Technically it’s a
handgun,” he told Embody, “but I don’t know why you need it out here,” and “I’m pretty
sure an AK-47 is not a handgun.” R.22-3 at 3. Uncertain how to proceed, Walsh
allowed Embody to continue through the park—for the time being.

Walsh phoned a supervisor, Ranger Steve Ward, for further direction. Ward in
turn called Chief Ranger Shane Petty, who did not believe the AK-47 was a handgun
given the description of it. Petty and Ward determined that Ward should undertake a
“felony take down” of Embody, disarm him and check the weapon. Id. at 9. They called
the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department for assistance

Ward found Embody in a parking lot and ordered him to the ground at gun point.Without arresting Embody, Ward removed the gun, patted him for other weapons and
detained him. When the Nashville police officers arrived, Ward explained his concern
that Embody’s weapon was illegal, and the officers conducted a weapons check to
determine the gun’s status. Meanwhile, Embody requested the presence of a police
supervisor, even after the Nashville officers advised him it would delay his release.Once the officers confirmed that the firearm fit the definition of a handgun under state
law, Ward returned the gun to Embody and released him. The incident lasted about twoand-
a-half hours.

Embody sued Ward for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Ward
had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to an unreasonable seizure
and his Second Amendment rights by disarming and detaining him for carrying a
weapon condoned by state law. The district court granted Ward’s motion for summary
judgment.

When I walk to the outskirts of town, to do some plinking, carrying my rifle am I inviting an encounter? Or, could it be that I am actually just going out to enjoy an afternoon of shooting cans and sticks at the creek?

When I walk to the outskirts of town, to do some plinking, carrying my rifle am I inviting an encounter? Or, could it be that I am actually just going out to enjoy an afternoon of shooting cans and sticks at the creek?

Michael

If you don't see the difference between the "outskirts of town" and a public park, we are so far apart conversation is pointless.

When I walk to the outskirts of town, to do some plinking, carrying my rifle am I inviting an encounter? Or, could it be that I am actually just going out to enjoy an afternoon of shooting cans and sticks at the creek?

Michael

A valid point, but the state park where this occurred doesn't have a shooting range, or at least that's my understanding.